drivers do not spend more, but they cost more: incentivising access to uk shopping centres by public...
TRANSCRIPT
Drivers do not spend more, but they cost more:
incentivising access to UK shopping centres by public transport and walking
Giles SemperThe Means LLP
Summary
• What retailers think about cars & parking• The behaviour of shoppers in centres owned by The Mall
Corporation• Similar experience from other UK Centres• Conclusions
What retailers think about cars & parking
What most retailers believe
Bike
6
Actual%
Shopkeepers Perception
%
Actual%
Shopkeepers Perception
%
Actual%
Shopkeepers Perception
%
Actual%
Shopkeepers Perception
%
41 55 42 10Bristol 13 11 22
Graz 16 12 32 58 44 25 8 5
Study
Bus Car Walk
What experience shows
York – retailers reported 20-30% increase in turnover following pedestrianisation
Hass-Klau 1993 – ‘many [German] towns show increases in the region of 20-40%’ after pedestrianisation
There is even a ‘knock-on’ positive effect upon retailers outside the pedestrianised area
The behaviour of shoppers in centres owned by The Mall Corporation
The Mall Corporation
• 17 sites around the UK• All in town and city centres• All centres have substantial
paid-for car parking. Most car parks are owned by The Mall, but some are council owned (and therefore lack investment)
• We have looked at six of them• We will feature three – 1
‘historic town’, 1 London centre, 1 other
Norwich
Uxbridge
Ilford
Walthamstow
Bristol
Sutton Coldfield
The Mall Corporation
• Norwich – historic, cathedral city
• Bristol – thriving big development city
• Walthamstow – upcoming city-centre area dominated by the young
• IIford – east London suburb • Uxbridge – university-
dominated market town• Sutton Coldfield – wealthy
dormitory town in Birmingham Bristol
Ilford
Walthamstow
Uxbridge
Sutton Coldfield
Norwich
LONDON
Conditions of survey
Data from ROI Group Exit survey (doesn’t include
those not shopping) Minimum 300 full interviews
per centre per year Negligible number of cyclists
Survey findings
Survey findings
Survey findings
Survey findings
Survey findings
Survey findings
Survey findings
Survey findings
Question: What is your opinion of this Mall? % of respondents agreeing with ‘I couldn’t get along without it’
Similar experience from other UK Centres
Camberwell shoppers survey 2008
• Admittedly low level of car use• The highest spenders were
walkers, followed by bus travellers
TfL’s bus user study 2009
Average spend per month, per mode
4,637 users across 15 London town centres
Walk £135.89Bike £114.27Bus £105.45Taxi/minicab £105.03Car £94.91Train £89.21Tube £86.53
Conclusions
Conclusions
• Gradual decline in car-borne shoppers
• Local ‘walk-up’ market has high spending power
• Shoppers arriving by public transport & walking are often from high socio-economic categories
• However major retailers now only need 75 stores to reach 50% of the population. 20 years ago it was 175 stores. This is probably due to increased mobility – by car.
Incentivising access
• The big prize for retailers is reducing the land given over to car parking
• Possible to levy higher parking charges on remaining drivers
• Retail centres can make a virtue of not catering for the car
• Partnerships with public transport operators to incentivise these modes (e.g. ‘we will refund your bus fare’)
• A wide range of other mobility management measures
ADVIERECOMM 2010
Involving the private sector in
promoting Public Transport
Niels de Vries
Shopkeepers campaign
• Three months pilot in Apeldoorn (population:136.000 )
• Joint contribution to keep mall accessible
• Customers receive a free bus ticket
• Tickets are valid till 1 month after the pilot has finished
Aim of campaign
Involving private sector in promoting Public Transport and to investigate if the private sector is willing to make a collective contribution for anaccessible shopping mall.
Philosophy
• Link between the accessibility of an area and the property/location value in that area.
• Public Transport has an added value for a destination:1% improvement in the accessibility leads to an increase of 0,3% of the property value (DTZ Zadelhoff & VU Amsterdam)
• Shopkeepers have a direct financial interest in more customers coming by car or public transport
Philosophy
• Public Transport doesn’t transport customers of a bus or a train, but customers of a destination.
• Customers add value to a destination
Joint Marketing
• The idea behind the marketing campaign was Joint Promotion. Veolia did the branding of the campaign, the shopkeepers took care of the communication to their customers.
• Common sticker with the logo of the campaign• Joint Promotions will lead to the selling of more
bus tickets and more purchases in shops: Joint Sales
Branding
The logo of the campaign Live
Bicycle cabs
Smallest bus in Holland
Bicycle lottery
Joint Promotion en Sales
Results
• In 3 months time shopkeepers gave away +/- 65.000 bus tickets. Veolia announced tickets were used regularly;
• Participating shopkeepers: 81;• Customers of shopping mall were very enthusiastic
about campaign;• Majority of shoppers were familiar with the campaign;• Shopkeepers were very positive, they say their
customers really like it to receive a free bus ticket.• Positive side effect: employees of shops were using bus
tickets as well.
Points of improvement
• Shopkeepers are not allowed to spend money on local initiatives, because majority of shops are franchise
• Pilot period was too short to determine the elasticity of the price
Points of attention
• Convince headquarters and property owners that bad accessibility will result in a decrease of property value.
• Increase the area in which people can use the bus tickets.
